Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;

that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;

that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;

that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);

that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, “For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost.”

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, “I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom.”

Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment - certainly Tim Ball's equal - Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.

For example, O'Sullivan provided bogus contact information when registering as a member* with the New York County Lawyers' Association, an organization that apparently does not vet its members' qualifications (and does not, in any case, bestow the right to practice law). While O'Sullivan claimed to be with a firm named “Principia Scientific International,” he provided the address of a construction company called Second Nature Construction; the phone number and fax number didn't belong to O'Sullivan or anyone connected to “Principia,” either.

Principia certainly exists in some form. According to its website, O'Sullivan is its CEO, and Tim Ball is Chairman. Other members include climate deniers Paul Driessen, Paul Reiter and more. Principia notes that it operates as a “private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity.”

This information emerged, and became relevant to this most recent libel action against Tim Ball, in part because Ball himself, in his Response to Civil Claim, stated that his communications with O'Sullivan were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Mann then filed a reply, pointing out the facts documented in Skolnick's affidavits. As Mann's lawsuit proceeds, the court will inevitably rule on Ball's claim for “solicitor-client” privilege.

In the meantime, Ball has not submitted any affidavit from O'Sullivan attesting to his qualifications as Ball's legal advisor. If he did, O'Sullivan would be subject to cross-examination by Michael Mann's lawyer.

* The original post mistakenly said O'Sullivan was registering as an 'associate' member; in fact he registered as a member and was granted membership, despite not having a valid law degree or Bar certification in New York. We regret the error.

Not a bad summary but you haven’t presented anything like the full picture. There is much much more behind what Greg Laden calls “Strangest AGW Denialist Story So Far This Year” (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/24/strangest-agw-denialist-story-so-far-this-year/#comment-90604) .

According to my records two of the main players in the Principia Scietific International saga John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball were exchanging E-mails since the middle of 2010. That’s when John was collecting together his team of “Dragon Slayers” in preparation for releasing their book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, which in my humble opinion is simply a hodge-podge of blog articles hurriedly thrown together behind a colourful cover. I’m not a scientist (neither are many of the PSI founding members) but after giving careful consideration to the arguments since March 2007 I am sceptical of the Catatrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. Although I’m a sceptic I have to agree with CACC supporters and many other sceptics that “Slaying the Sky Dragon” has little if any scientific merit.

The E-mail exchanges that took place during Dec. 2010/Jan 2011 indicate that John’s big plan was to form an international publishing company Principia Scientific International (PSI) with thousands of subscribing members. PSI would have an executive with Tim Ball as Chairman, John O’S as CEO, Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder as CFO, Rev. Philip Foster as Complaince Offier and the rest of the executive chosen from the other co-authors.

John’s teaching career (in art and possible some sports?), which extended over a period of about 18 years but seems to have been somewhat intermittent, appeared to come to a rather abrupt end in 2003 when those charges were brought by his step-daughter’s one-time friend Rebecca. He was acquitted of all charges after his step daughter flew over from the US on the eve of the final day of the hearing and took the blame for sending the text messages. Since then John has tried a variety of other means of earning a living before his PSI venture.

When he failed to raise the start-up funds from within his group of “Slayers” (as I recall less than a measly £200 each) he then made a public appeal for £15000 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Since 17th Jan 2011 it has attracted £450, with John claiming that the £350 received within the first hour coming from a family member in the USA (although, as with most things that John claims, that is questionable). The next appeal that I am aware of John making was for donations to pay Tim Ball’s legal fees. You have to hand it to John, he is persistent.

It’s a long, complicated but fascinating story with many unexpected tsists and turns. Anyone interested can find out more at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) in articles and postings made since May.

John O’Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/

He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn’t have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.

John O’Sullivan has posted a response to this article. http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/desmogblog-fail-with-pop-gun-character-assassination-ploy/

He keeps saying that Dr. Mann hid his meta-data. I think this is a reference to the computer code for the hockey stick graph. Actually, Dr. Mann released that code some years ago even though he didn’t have to. See page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton.

Tim Ball keeps changing what he says about climate change without giving any evidence for his contradictory arguments. How can the earth be warming in 2006 but cooling at an increasing rate since 2000?

I very much doubt that this comment will see the light of day, but here’s hoping this forum is open to healthy debate and is willing to consider counter-argument:

I’m not here to defend Mr. O’Sullivan, but as Mr. Skolnick has chosen to very publicly attack his credentials, I think his own credentials now become ‘fair game’ and open to scrutiny.

I hope he can directly address the following question:

Do you continue to believe it is wholly accurate (and not misleading) to describe yourself as ‘nominated for a Pulitzer prize”? (see http://aaskolnick.com/new/mybio.htm)…as stated in your bio, resume and sworn court affidavits?

My understanding is that, at best, a piece you once co-wrote may have been entered into the Pulitzer competition by a newspaper. But, as you know, you were never nominated by the Pulitzer committee. Your co-reporters (Bill Allen and Kim Bell) don’t make such claims to be ‘nominees’, despite the obvious prestige of such an honorific (see http://journalism.missouri.edu/staff/bill-allen/).

It seems patently clear to me that merely being an entrant, yet implying being a ‘nominee’, is disingenuous and misleading, at best. But I also base my opinion on such sources as the Pulitzer committee and respected ‘investigative reporters’ such as NBC’s Bill Dedman:

Under normal circumstances, such a padding of a resume could be overlooked and seen as rather inconsequential boasting. But as you’ve chosen to attack the credentials of another person, I think it’s wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant).

Care to respond DIRECTLY to the question? Without any more personal insults?

P.S. I happen to believe Professor Mann is justifiably well-respected in his field. I don’t have the knowledge to comment on the facts in the case….so I have deliberately never taken a stance on who is right and who is wrong. But I do feel Mr. Skolnick’s personal insults of Mr. O’Sullivan merely dilute the prosecution case….comments such as ‘humbug’ lawyer merely exacerbate the already libelous environment…global warming is emotionally charged enough…such potentially defamatory comments don’t help, in my opinion. As Mr. O’Sullivan is somewhat involved in this case (albeit in the past?), good on you Mr. Skolnick…but just be aware that your own credentials, prior terminations et al. are not beyond scrutiny either.

Although Andrew Skolnick and I are poles apart regarding the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis I still have a lot of respect for his courage and tenacity regarding searching for the truth and his transparency. Unlike others who throw insults from behind false names, Andrew has no qualms about disclosing who he is. He also puts his money where his mouth is.

Hundreds of comments and E-mail exchanges took place in 2011 between Andrew, members of John O’Sullivan’s group of climate science “slayers”/Principia Scientific International (PSI) members and other parties and many have been posted on the Global Political Shenanigans blog since May.

The veracity of claims made by both John O’Sullivan and Andrew Skolnick were debated ad nauseum (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html and http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html) including the matter of Andrew’s claim to have been nominated for a Pulitzer prize (a minor matter of semantics?). Much more significant claims were discussed, such as qualifications earned and employment record.

One example is John O’Sullivan’s claim to having earned a degree in Law/Fine Art from University of Surrey in 1984 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) and to have “ .. earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html - see my comment of Dec 19 2011, 06:28 PM). After repeated requests for evidence to support those claims John responded with “ .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ” (12 Dec 2011 15:02).

On the other hand, when challenged by John “ .. Among Skolnick’s bogus assertions are that he possesses a master’s degree .. ” (8 Dec 2011 23:39) Andrew came straight back with “ .. I’d be happy to mail a request to Columbia University’s registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address. .. Let’s see if John O’Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree. .. I’ve been asking .. for proof for the past 6 months .. ” (9 Dec 2011 0:41).

I was the only one to ask Andrew (see my E-mail of 11 Dec 2011 9:55) and true to his word, on 4th January I received the certified evidence from Columbia University’s Office of the Registrar “ .. Skolnick, Andrew A. .. Attendance: Sept. 1980-May 1981 Degrees .. Earned .. Master of Science May 13, 1981 .. ”.

In my humble opinion the scales of transparency are heavily loaded on Andrew Skolnick’s side, despite the claims made by John O’Sullivan in the PSI promotional material “ .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc).

I recommend that anyone looking for balance, like Mark (who? what? where?) G in this discussion have a very careful read of the May, June July posts at Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) – but then, perhaps I’m biased!

Mark G, you seem to have problems with the use of the word “nominate” and the procedures used in awarding Pulitzer Prizes.

Firstly, let’s look at the word “nominate”. A quick check of your Thesaurus shows the words “put forward”. This is exactly what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did, they put forward (nominated) Andrew to be considered by the Pulitzer Prize committee. The PPC then made a short list of candidates and from that list chose who was to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize. It would have been wrong to call himself “nominated finalist” but that is not what he said.

Mark G, be very careful when you decide to use an ad hominem attack on some one, it might just backfire in your face.

“It’s not uncommon for Pulitzer entrants to make a false claim to be nominees. Here’s how it works: Though there are only three nominees, known as nominated finalists, in each Pulitzer category each year, there are more than 2,000 entrants. One could say that all of them were “nominated” by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.

The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board’s online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, “Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.”

Are you saying that the only time someone can use the word “nominate” is if they are a Pulitzer Prize “nominated finalist”? That is just nonsense, it is perfectly correct to say that such and such organization nominated you (put forward your name) for a prize by XYZ organization.

The following claim was made by Mr. Skolnick on his bio: ““The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize. in Investigative Journalism”.

If that clearly connotes that the publisher ‘nominated’ him, then clearly I’m stupid.

Tellingly, Mr. Skolnick has subsequently changed his bio:

FROM “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism” TO “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…”

I’ll repost the PPC directive again:

“We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” Source: PPC website FAQ

As well as an excerpt from Bill Dedman’s piece on an expose of self-proclaimed ‘nominees.’

“When Liu was a reporter for The Financial Times in Atlanta in 2000, Bloomberg said, the newspaper submitted her work to the Pulitzer committee. To call that submission a Pulitzer “nomination” is like saying that Adam Sandler is an Oscar nominee if Columbia Pictures enters “That’s My Boy” in the Academy Awards….one could say that all of them were “nominated” by someone. If all Pulitzer entrants could be called nominees, any publisher could give all its authors that honorific by submitting an entry form and a check for $50.

The Pulitzer rules make clear that the only people to be known as nominees are those finalists chosen by the Pulitzer juries. From those nominated finalists, the Pulitzer board chooses the winners. Everyone else is just an entrant. As the Pulitzer board’s online list of frequently asked questions explains politely, “Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. … we discourage someone saying he or she was ‘NOMINATED’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” [emphasis added].

What isn’t clear Ian?

Per PPC, “We discourage someone saying he or she was ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us.” Yet, Mr. Skolnick claimed in his bio that “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen, Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Jornalism.”

Changing his bio to “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleague…” is clearly more accurate, but still disingeneous, per PPC and Dedman.

But I’ll leave you with a final thought. Why did Mr. Skolknick choose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?

Your ” .. I just had one question about Skolnick’s claimed credentials .. the claim that he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Nothing more, nothing less .. ” required 400 words??!!

It doesn’t wash - you were doing more than that, as clearly stated in ” .. I think it’s wholly acceptable to question the accuracy of your own claimed credentials (especially since you have made affidavits in the case, where your own veracity is clearly relevant) .. “.

Don’t you agree that it is rather impertinent for someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to challenge the veracity of someone like Andrew who has demonstrated that he is prepared to be transparent and substantiate his claims. As I understand it Andrew Skolnick undertook very careful research before challenging John O’Sulivan’s claims. I speculate that you have done little before challenging Andrew’s claims.

May I suggest that before you dig yourself deeper into that hole you visit and read the articles that I linked to earlier. Also, you should perhaps consider whether or not you should apologise to Andrew – just a thought.

Mark Thompson’s personal attacks here and on John O’Sullivan’s web site might be relevant if the documents described in Brendan DeMelle and Richard Littlemore’s article were based on my opinion. They clearly are not.

The documents described in their report are public records, most with links for readers to verify for themselves.

Mr. Thompson is a marketing consultant who has recently joined John O’Sullivan in attacking me by throwing anything they can find, from the Pulitzer Prize nomination my colleagues Kim Bell, Bill Allen and I received from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to being “just a pet photographer.”

I confess, I took most of the photographs for my latest article in AKCFamily Dog. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/68587367#/68587367/37 Now that they let the dog out of the bag, I’ll count myself lucky they didn’t find pictures of me washing my own dishes.

Whether I’m a dish washer, pet photographer, or science reporter, my credentials are an irrelvant smokescreen regarding this matter. What is relevant are the public documents I found and entered as sworn evidence in the affidavitts submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Tim Ball, et al.

Readers should ignore all the smoke and smear and examine for themselves the evidence DeMelle and Littlemore cite in their report.

You seem to be suggesting that Mark G is that Mark Thompson who is making those “personal attacks” (Come on Mark, show that you have the courage of your convictions and disclose who you are, where you’re located and what is your area of expertise). Can you provide a link to the John O’Sullivan blog thread where those attacks are being made? I’m tempted to do a “due diligence” exercise on Mark G, as I did on John O’sullivan and his “Slayer”/PSI group (see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).

I had just been searching for Mark Thompson and came across a blog “Greenie Watch” (http://jonjayray.6te.net/green.html) run by John O’Sullivan’s psychologist buddy John J Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html). It linked to John O’Sullivan’s 16th Dec. article “Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43274.html) in which he made a ridiculous attack on your integrity. You’ll recall John claiming in his E-mail to the “Slayers”/PSI members and others that “ .. Mr. Skolnick is actively engaged in criminally fabricating web pages to use against me to bolster his bogus claims .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html on 15 Dec 2011 16:27. See also the comment under UPDATE: 2012-07-25).

This was another of John’s many ludicrous claims which was quickly refuted.

I wonder if Mark is managing to get his scales to balance yet.

It is very rarely that I agree with Cathy (AKA Snapple) or Ian Forrester but for once there is no argument.

Whether for pay or out of the goodness of his heart I do not know. But I would like to find out.

Mr. Thompson popped up some months ago in LinkedIn Science Writers Group and began to engage me in heated discussions after I pointed out that he is a self-employed marketing consultant with a masters degree in Marketing – not a science writer nor someone with a graduate degee in science as he was claiming.

He used that heated discussion to get me banned from the Science Writers Group and pressed moderators of other LinkedIn Groups to ban me, without success. Meanwhile, he peppered me with unwelcome messages accusing me of being a “a sad old fuck living with animals for company,” being “a pet photographer,” and similar crimes.

On July 29, Mr. Thompson sent another harrassing LinkedIn message accusing me of lying for claiming in one of my bios that I had received a settlement from Correctional Medical Services when I sued them for libel and tortuous interference in 2000.

Two days later, “Mark G” published the very same false charges on John O’Sullivan’s blog, in which he accused me of lying and falsely claimed that CMS probably paid $1 for me to go away and not file an appeal. The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked, and I agreed to ask the judge for a “dismissal with prejudice” upon settlment – which is legalese for vini vidi vici.

A heated discussion doesn’t get people banned from a LinkedIn group…continued personal, unprofessional insults get people banned. And not just against one person, but against many, as I recall my email from the group owner.

Being a sad f**k isn’t a crime…just a sad reality and personal opinion. Being a ‘pet photographer”, of which you admit to being, isn’t a crime either.

Not sure which ‘CMS’ message you’re referencing. But if my comment was so baseless, why amend your bio recently with respect to your CMS claim (and also alleged Pulitzer nomination?). Pray tell, how were these comments totally baseless, given your hasty rewriting of your bio?

RE:”The fact, which is a matter of public record, is CMS offered a settlement for thousands of times more dollars than Thompson smirked .”

I’m not aware of such a public record of Mr. Skolnick’s settlement implying ‘thousands’. Indeed, most settlements specifically include a confidentiality clause that prohibits either plaintiff or defendant from discussing the details of a settlement.

If Mr. Skolnick is indeed subject to such a confidentiality clause, suggestions of ‘thousands of more dollars…’ seems to be a clear breach of such an agreement.

I intend to pursue with CMS, given his defamatory comments and insults towards me.

Any chance you can actually respond to my question, rather than devolving into cheap ‘slime ball’ personal insults? If not , I’ll assume you can’t respond to my argument without a weak ‘ad hominem’ attack.

What’s the problem in responding to a very direct question? A failure to do so just exposes your immaturity and/or lack of intellect IMO.

By way of reminder (yet again):

“Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?”

But if you’re going to throw out irrelevant comments about Mr. O’Sullivan, please try and be grammatically correct:

“RE: By the way, have you seen how O’Sullivan showed is ignorance of the legal system….”

I assume you meant HIS ignorance? If so, fine. But hardly germane to the question I asked of you…any chance you can answer the question I posed, without resorting to personal insults or throwing out non sequiturs?

But here goes again, for one last time:

“Why do you think Mr. Skolknick chose to rewrite his bio, amending the Pulitzer blurb et. al, if my allegation was so ‘stupid’?”

No response or just further personal insults? Then I think our conversation is over.

What makes you think that you have any right to demand an answer from me. Stop your ad hominem comments and people may respond in a civil way, keep up the nonsense and we wont, it’s very simple. You started off with ad hominem comments and have continued to do so. I take it that you do know what ad hominem means.

Neither you nor Pulitzer have any right to hijack the meaning and use of words which are well established in the English language. Why do you find that so hard to grasp? Ooh wait, you cannot make ad hominem and insulting comments without resorting to redefining the meaning of some simple words.

Asking repeatedly for an answer to a question is an arrogant ‘Mad Hatter’ request. I guess i should just put up with irrelevant comments and an inability to engage in constructive debate.

In terms of ‘Ad Hominem’ comments, I believe it was you who made ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ and ‘slime ball’ comments, rather than respond constructively to my comments. I don’t recall making such juvenile comments myself.

And, you’re probably right, the Pulitzer folks are idiots as well, having the audacity to suggest how their own entrants describe their entries. Though we seem to have have moved from ‘misinterpretation’ of PPC to the ‘narrow-minded Pulitzer folks’, though I suspect you missed that.

Bye Ian.

Probably time to finish your homework. I really don’t have the time to waste with non-players or intellectual pygmies. But take care.

Mark G, once again you have problems in understanding simple English usage and logical fallacies. The first comments you made on this blog posting were not to offer any evidence that AS was untruthful or making things up. Instead you stated a number of slurs and insults to demean him and therefore hopefully make people doubt his statements concerning JOS. That is what ad hominem is, you attack the person to try and show he is wrong rather than present evidence of his wrong doing.

My comments about you (e.g. Humpty Dumpty) was an analogy showing that you were trying to change the meaning of words to suit your position. That is not ad hominem but is just a description of the tactics you used.

Your more recent comments just show that my opinion of you as a “slime ball” are justified. Why anyone would actually try and defend JOS’s actions is, to be honest, just astonishing. At the time JOS was accused of his completely inappropriate sexual attentions on a young girl I had a daughter of approximately the same age. I have been aware of JOS for some time but if I had known about these episodes earlier I can assure you I would be using much more derogatory remarks in describing his personage than “slime ball”.

Of course I’m Mark G….and Mark Thompson…I have no qualms about admitting that.

I realize I’ve entered the lion’s den by having the ‘audacity’ to question Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials on this forum.

But I’ll re-iterate. If Mr. Skolnick chooses to attack Mr. O’Sullivan’s credentials, then his own credentials become fair game…both morally and legally (questioning his credibility as a witness is a basic legal tenet and right when he makes sworn court affidavits). If you can’t understand that basic logic or right, further discussion seems futile.

So, I’ll repost my latest entry on Mr. O’Sullivan’s blog:

Rewriting history….

Had my above allegations against Mr. Skolnick’s own credentials been baseless, would he have taken the time to quickly rewrite his own bio?

I think not. Clearly, he now realizes his own credentials are not beyond criticism.

Two key changes have been made to his bio, as of August 4th…which directly relate to comments previously made (c.f. Pulitzer nomination and CMS libel suit).

The changes are as follows (August 4th vs. July 23rd 2012, screenshots of both available):

FROM “The Post-Dispatch series earned my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell and me a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism” TO “The Post-Dispatch nominated my colleagues Bill Allen and Kim Bell for a Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism…”

Still disingenuous and misleading, per clear PPC guidelines, but at least the pet photographer has recognized his own puffery.

FROM “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference and obtained an out-of-court settlement” TO “I later sued Correctional Medical Services for libel and tortuous interference, which I withdrew following receipt of a settlement offer.”

Still no mention of the fact that CMS obtained a summary judgment against his libel claim, but being economical with the truth seems par for the course with Mr. Skolnick.

Again, one has to wonder why such changes were made if the allegations surrounding his own credentials were so baseless?

Mark

P.S. I just noticed. Mr. Skolnick was a little hasty in his rewrite…he didn’t mention himself in the revised and still disingenuous Pulitzer ‘nomination’ blurb!…or maybe the Post-Dispatch didn’t include him as an entrant? Thankfully, his fellow co-reporters never made such misleading claims to be ‘nominated’ (by either the Post-Dispatch or the Pulitzer Prize Committee), so they can never be accused of rewriting history.

END

Again, if these charges were unwarranted, why rewrite a bio? And attack my own credentials or motives as much as you like. I’m not party to a high-profile lawsuit, so personal attacks are irrelevant…and meaningless to me. My motive is to expose the hypocrisy….believe that or not….I don’t really care.

I think the Tim Ball camp has been guilty of trumpet-blowing. Fair point.

But I think the same charge can be levelled at the Mann camp….many comments on forums such as this and Prof. Mann’s own Facebook page would evidence this, in my opinion (not sure if you participate in Mann’s FB comments anymore?). But I’ve never known a high-profile, politically charged case where the non-litigant ‘supporters’, on both sides, don’t get involved in trumpet-blowing.

I feel BOTH sides have also come very close, if not guilty, of making further defamatory comments. Which seems politically and legally naive, given that we’re dealing with a libel suit.

But any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit? That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball’s or John O’Sullivan’s behavior.

P.S. I already stated that I have no stance on the trial per se…I don’t have your knowledge of the global warming ‘facts’…my sole focus has been on Mr. Skolnick’s credentials. In the same way he doesn’t appear to take a position on the trial per se…but merely focuses on Mr. O’Sullivan’s credentials.

If you had been involved in the hundreds of E-mails with the “Slayers”/PSI members and others since 2010 you might have a different opinion. Try reading what is available at GlobalPoliticalShenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) then get back to me (unless, as I suspect, your strings are being pulled).

To substantiate your allegation of defamatory trumpet blowing, can you please respond directly to my question?

Namely:

“Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit? That was the point of my comment, not a defense of Tim Ball’s or John O’Sullivan’s behavior.

To reiterate, a direct response to my direct question would be much appreciated. Without one, I think this discussion is going nowhere.

Best regards, Mark

P.S. I fully expect more ‘smoke’ about my motives. That’s ok and that’s your prerogative to create such a smokescreen. But kindly, respond to my direct question. Thanks.

P.P.S. And, to pre-empt any further questions, I DO have issues with Mr. Skolnick…he has personally insulted me on more than one forum…so I will expose what I see as hypocrisy from him (re: attacking someone else’s credentials). You can google to your hearts content…you will see that I have never taken a stance on global warming…my motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity (much like Skolnicks, I assume).

You ask repeatedly of people here “Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick rewrote his bio recently with respect to the Pulitzer Prize ‘nomination’ blurb or CMS libel suit?” but I speculate that you are not really interested in getting an answer. What I suspect you are trying to do is divert attention from what I consider to be the far more important questions about the founding members of the blogging group Principia Scientific International, driven by tim Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant), Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder (CFO) and Joe Olson.

You fail miserable so to do.

You make the laudable claim that your “ .. motivations center solely around exposing hypocrisy and duplicity .. ” and that too sounds very like the claims made in John o’Sullivan’s promotional material on the PSI web-site and his declarations during the “PSI& Due Diligence” debate in Dec. 2010/Jan.2011 (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).

Phrases such as “ .. turn noble words into actions .. “ .. to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization .. ” and “ .. our future intentions are to also provide member services to pursue other noble causes .. ” spring to mind.

Many thanks for the link going back to December 2011. As you point out, Mr. O’Sullivan questioned the veracity of Mr. Skolnick’s claims to be ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer Prize on December 11th.

Any thoughts as to why Mr. Skolnick didn’t reply back then? Or why he eventually chose to rewrite his bio in the last few days following my recent question on this forum? (perhaps because he subsequently made sworn court affidavits, attesting to his own credentials?).

I’m not in the employ of O’Sullivan, Ball or anyone else. Nor do I support any position on global warming. But doubt that as you may…it doesn’t relieve you or Skolnick from responding to this charge of ‘puffery’ (at best). A non-response…and the recent rewriting of a bio..merely demonstrates that such a charge was wholly warranted.

Though I doubt I’ll get a direct response to my question from you. From what I’ve read, even the eminent Professor Mann wants to dissociate himself from you:

(From Professor Mann’s Facebook post, titled, “I have formally demanded a retraction of, and apology for, this defamatory piece about me by National Review. I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights”, started July 20, 2012).

Hi Mark G (Thompson) When I read Ian Forrester’s first comment here my immediate reaction was “that can’t be the same Ian Forrester that I’ve had exchanges with – this one sounds reasonable .. ”. It didn’t take long for Ian to show his true colours. “ .. Mark G thanks for showing everyone what sort of a slime ball you are .. ”.

Wait for it Mark, I anticipate that you’ll soon be getting a blast of Ian Forrester’s vile invective. Here’s a sample from my March 2010 comment on “An update to Kiehl and Trenberth 1997” ( http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2095) QUOTE: .. In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments). It doesn’t matter who they are, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. There are many examples, e.g. on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist and of course here on Chris’s blogs .. ”.

You’ve had the “slime ball” insult but I wonder which of the others you (or I?) will be subjected to next.

BTW, you seem to have the impression that I was suggesting that you were a trumpet blower. I have seen no evidence of that and my comment was directed at the puppeteer.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

PS:

If you are puzzled by my reference to “Gemini” see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-2014

“In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade or suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments).”

In the years I have participated and seen Ian’s posts on various blogs, he seems like a pretty rational level headed guy. It’s usually when people post deliberately troll like comments that I see a change and I think he is right to do so.

Deniers like to post outlandish, baseless, blog referenced, ill thought out comments, usually followed with the obligatory warmist/alarmist/CAGW/socialist/fascist/communist or some such projective comment. Then feign outrage when they are attacked back, or are not given the courtesy of emotionless argument or criticism. It’s cheap and pathetic.

I’ve been called all the things you complain about and more on denier/right wing blogs, except “denier”. Roll with the punches and stop being so precious.

The denier position can be explained very simply. It’s either political (conservative,right wing or libertarian) or being funded by or in the employment of the fossil fuel industry or one of their front groups. They start from that position and work their backwards, looking for anything to support their fragile position. Usually a right wing blog that mentions Al Gore at least once a week, so as to convey to the casual drive by reader, what their angle is on the political spectrum. Always careful not to mention the conservative gov’s and politicians around the world that agree with the prevailing AGW theory. That would blow a hole in the denier meme that it’s a liberal conspiracy wouldn’t it?

I speculate that Mark G (Thompson) may be upset that comments about his string-puller are permeating the bloggosphere. I’ve just come across this on the “With friends like these we need no enemies” thread of New Zealand blogger Richard Treadgold “ .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility. In recent months he has tried this rubbish on Monckton and then my good friend Rupert Wyndham. He simply confirmed that he is a fool .. ”.

The moderator’s response included “ .. Several people advise us kindly to have nothing to do with John O’Sullivan. My thanks to them, and a warning to John not to take the opportunity to fight it out again in these columns; I won’t publish it .. ” (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694).

“DeSmoggians take the position that disagreeing with their cataclysmic views on global warming is a moral failing, and as such, that it is OK for DeSmogBlog to print vile and, amazingly often, false things about those people. .. If there is any one person that the DeSmoggians just can’t stand, it is Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Over and over again they attack him, using the same silly and fallacious arguments and sophomoric insults. .. I’d never met or otherwise been in touch with Tim Ball. I’d read his writing many times; I even wrote about him when silly lefties falsely reported that he was employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, and again when the Long Beach Press-Telegram falsely reported that the National Center was “promoting him.” And, of course, I’d see the lefties go absolutely nutty over him, in the deranged meaning of the term.”

It seems to be that you, like Skolnick, just fill your long days with hurling juvenile slurs and insults at anyone who will indulge you. Whether it be me, this own blog or others such as O’Sullivan. I’m guessing that, like him, you’re now retired? Honestly, I’d really find something else to occupy your time….these rants are really rather sad.

I don’t recall throwing out comments such as ‘slime ball’ or anything close, to you, Ian or anyone else.

Please show some civility and professionalism.

Your inability to engage in healthy debate means that I have no further intention of continuing this meaningless conversation with you.

“Well, I wondered when the first [opponents] would get here. The honor belongs to the global warming denier and cyberstalker Pete Ridley, who just popped up to edit this biographical article – after the moderator of Dr. Judith Curry’s web site repeatedly snipped and warmed him to stop posting malevolent personal and intimidating attacks. Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the “global warming hoax” is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds….I don’t think Wikipedia is in need of “scholars” like Pete Ridley. Askolnick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Mr. Skolnick lying about you? Also a slime-ball for making such claims?

I found the “malevolent personal and intimidating attacks” particularly germane, albeit rather hypocritical. You both seem as bad as each other in your desire for malevolent, personal and unprofessional insults and slurs.

You really are out of touch with what is going on, aren’t you. If you had bothered to follow the links that I gave you to Global Political Shenanigans and spent some time getting enlightenment from what is there you’d have seen that the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick was provided to the “Slayers”/PSI group almost a year ago (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html on 28 Sep 2011 @ 23:44 and on 18 Sep 2011 @ 19:07).

On that first occasion I said to John O’Sullivan and a fellow founding member of the PSI blogging group Joe Olson QUOTE: .. PSI’s “Principles of Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) claims that PSI promotes scientists adhering to the Scientific Method and individuals wishing to expose corruption in science. Professor Curry’s “Slaying a greenhouse dragon” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) was kicked back into activity on 4th June after a three month quiet period by one Andrew Skolnick, who questioned the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don’t recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims. (Please Joe, don’t start mistakingly suggesting that Andrew Skolnick and I are allies – see “Beware” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) .. ”.

If you have a comprehension problem then please try to get an educated friend to explain to you what that final sentence within parentheses means.

I brought Andrew into those E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers”/PSI group members et al. on 8 Dec 2011 when I said to John O “ .. Hi John, I see that Andrew Skolnick is still ferreting around for information about your background .. ” and challenged John with “ .. how about also making public your Surrey University and Hill University certificates so that Andrew can be put straight on this further questionable claim of his .. ”.

True to form John tried diversionary tactics with “ .. I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ” (12 Dec 2011 @ 15:02)

As I said to Andrew on 16 Dec 2011 23:38 “ .. I don’t know where John dreamed up the idea that you were my “ .. dear friend .. ” (his comment on 12th Dec.). I think you’ll agree that the best way to look at our relationship is that we called an uneasy truce for a while .. ”. Note that in response to that E-mail John O’Sullivan made that unsubstantiated claim “ .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982 .. ”.

You will recall that when I asked Andrew to substantiate his claim to having an MSc. he did so without any qualms. I ask you, why was John not prepared to respond in a similar transparent manner? After all, he claims repeatedly in his PSI promotional material that transparency is important to his blogging group PSI, e.g. “ .. OURCOREVALUESEXPLAINED: Principia Scientific International about transparency and truth .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/). Actions speak louder than words!

Please Mark, try to make some time to read and understand what has been made available on Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/) since May about the PSI blogging group instead of risking making a fool of yourself. The article “Being Judged By The Company We Keep” (http://angelabininger.com/2010/03/28/being-judged-by-the-company-we-keep/) may help you to understand.

I think you’re confusing me with someone who really cares about your views on PSI or John O’Sullivan. You clearly fell out with them/him at some point and now carry a big chip on your shoulder. But that’s your problem, not mine.

I have neither the time nor the desire to trawl through the endless rants on your blog. You’re clearly very proud of the fact that you have archived endless repetitive discussions about PSI and O’Sullivan. Good on you for doing so and I hope it gets you the attention you clearly crave, but you’re missing the point of my original post.

My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick. The fact that he has now chosen to amend his bio with respect to the points I raised, indicates to me that I was right to do so. Had my allegations been baseless, why would he rewrite (and I very much doubt you will ever answer that question, much like Ian).

But I tend to agree with his August 7 views of you, especially with regard to “malevolent personal and intimidating attacks.”

And if Skolnick is accurate in his claim that “Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the ‘global warming hoax’ is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds”, then you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself…however politically charged this issue, such anti-Semite views are disgusting.

Rather than respond to charges centered around Skolnick’s credentials, all you’ve done is come back with an endless rant about PSI/O’Sullivan. The best you’ve been able to muster up is something about him having an MS. I never challenged that.

So can you see why I feel you’re unable to engage in constructive debate? And making personal ‘slime-ball’ slurs merely reinforces this view. Like Professor Mann has commented about you, I think it’s just crass nonsense.

If you can’t respond directly to the charges I made against Skolnicks own credentials, please don’t bother responding. Yet another link to your archive of Professor Curry forum conversations will be pointless.

“My intent from the outset was to expose some dubious claimed credentials of Skolnick.”

You tried to use your own definition of words to try and support your unjustifiable claim. You have shown a complete disregard for honest comment, not surprising for some one who would try and support such a despicable person as John O’Sullivan.

Your best bet now is to get back under the rock where you and JOS are hiding, it only befits such disgusting people that you hide under the same rock. You are a pitiful person but I feel no pity towards you only contempt.

Though it’s strange why Mr. Skolnick would rewrite his bio, specifically changing claims that I challenged. If it were mere word play, as you suggest, why bother?

Of course it’s arrogant of me to suggest that you should ever answer that question (maybe because you can’t…better just to hurl out another personal insult?).

And where pray, have I ever sought to defend John O’Sullivan? Whether in terms of his own credentials or his position on global warming? I’ve even gone as far to state that Skolnick’s allegations, if proved, highlight serious issues about O’Sullivan’s credentials.

From the outset, I have sought solely to challenge Skolnick’s claimed credentials.

If you can’t understand the hypocrisy of someone attacking someone elses credentials when their own are far from squeaky clean, then I give up. You seem to want to encourage full exposure of Skolnick’s allegations but totally suppress any discussion of his own credentials. Normally, the credentials of a semi-retired journalist would be totally irrelevant…but as he has chosen to make sworn statements in a court of law, then they become highly relevant. What don’t you understand about that argument?

Maybe there’s some logic to your own argument and personal slurs. But that logic totally escapes me.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

In Part II of our intimate interview with Professor Michael Mann he tells of the exact moment he fully acknowledged humans were driving climate change – and how his conversion was thanks to the invention of the colour printer. Read Part I here. The interview forms part of our Epic History of climate denial.

Michael Mann, the scientist behind the climate change hockey stick graph, began his PhD at the...